Sunday, November 05, 2006

Election Eve Reading Round-Up

Kant welcomes the political moralist, but he warns us ardently of the moralizing politician... How can we identify the wolf in sheep's clothing who presents himself on the public stage as a man of morals but in fact is morally corrupt? There is, writes Kant, a three-part test that gives us an unfailing peek at the political scoundrel. First, does he seek every opportunity to assert the right of the state he controls over its own people and over other peoples?... Second, does he accept the principle of accountability for his own misdeeds – or does he in fact try to pass off to others every mistake that occurs?... Third, does he rule through the sowing of discord and division? After coming to power, does he identify other potential rivals to power and attack them or set them to battle, one against the other? ... But in its entire history, America has had only one leader who clearly passes Kant's three-point test to detect the political scoundrel. His name is George W Bush. Is it even necessary to rehearse the test?

Many progressives have never quite understood why the most vehement religious opponents of homosexuality view it as such a threat. I myself have always assumed that it is because religious opponents are devoted to the preservation of traditional gender roles, which sustain a male/female hierarchy. But the Ted Haggard story suggests a different reason-- at least for that segment of religious opponents who, like a significant proportion of the population generally, share same-sex or bisexual orientations and desires. Viewed from Ted Haggard's perspective-- a man who, despite his shame and guilt, is attracted to other men-- gay marriage and the gay lifestyle really are a threat to heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage. That is because they are a threat to his heterosexual identity and his heterosexual marriage. He knows the Devil is always tracking him, waiting for him to slip up. That is because he conceptualizes his sexual desires as sin and as alienation from God, and not as the expressions of something that might actually become valuable to him if accepted them as part of himself.

When I say the Dujail case is “bullshit” I’m not saying that the crime itself was no crime. It was a mass reprisal based on evidence collected under torture with little in the way of a fair chance for the accused to exonerate themselves, a punishment designed as much to terrify onlookers as bring justice to the guilty. All bad stuff. No matter who does it. We are already doing some of the kind of thing ourselves. Too many people in this country want us to do more of it.

ABBOTT: Fine. Let’s start with mee.COSTELLO: You.ABBOTT: No, mee.COSTELLO: Fine, we’ll start with you.ABBOTT: No, we’ll start with mee.COSTELLO: Okay, have it your way.ABBOTT: Now, mee is who.COSTELLO: You is Abbott.ABBOTT: No, no, no. Mee is who.COSTELLO: You is Abbott.ABBOTT: You don’t understand.COSTELLO: I don’t understand? Did you just say me is who?ABBOTT: Yes I did. Mee is who.COSTELLO: You is Abbott.

Whether or not you do for any of the others (which I recommend in each and every case), you'll definitely want to read the whole thing this time, eh?

In short, the authors conclude, it would take surprisingly little time for vampires to rule the earth:[chart showing complete vampirization of the Earth in c. 30 months omitted]Relying on the anthropic principle -- which declares that any condition essential for human existence must indeed be true -- the authors conclude that because the non-existence of vampires is necessary for human survival, vampires cannot in fact be real.